CEO of Vice ; “We have a team there shooting right now. The levels of radiation in the place are through the f****** roof. “
Tuesday, January 7, 2014 6:10
Globalist Report
Joe Rogan, host: How bad is Fukushima?
Shane Smith, reporter and CEO of VICE (Forbes: ‘One to Watch’ on Forbes 400 record. Est. Net Worth: $400 million): Bad, very bad. […] If you look at Fukushima, it’s an perfect example of the issue with nuclear power. […] The levels of radiation have not f****** gone down. We have a team there shooting right now. The levels of radiation in the place are through the f****** roof. […]
Rogan: I did see a piece on the fish — on tuna’s being 3% [actually around 1,000%, see below] more irradiated than before¹. That’s a big number, 3% after a couple years when you’re dealing with something that’s going to be radiating the ocean for hundreds of thousands of years if it’s still leaking. […]
Smith: There’s a lot of stories now coming out that the Japanese government kept it under wraps, didn’t want to tell anybody. The food around the whole region was irradiated. People in Tokyo were showing increased signs, etc. etc. It’s going to be bad for quite some time. What do you expect?
Rogan: And how the f*** are they ever going to stop it? […] Are they still leaving it up to Japan? […] It’s just unbelievably incredible that they never thought that it would be able to get shut off — that they just built this crazy power plant with no ability to cool it down. […] What really scares me is I don’t think I’ve heard one person come up with any way that makes sense as to how to contain it. Not just hot to contain it, but how to stop it, how to clean the area up — It’s almost just not even discussed. How the f*** do they clean that? […]
Eddie Huang, chef, restaurant owner, TV host: I’m guessing they can’t — that’s why they don’t talk about it.
¹It’s about 1,000% higher, not 3% — Fox News, AP: “The levels of radioactive cesium were10 times higher than the amount measured in tuna off the California coast in previous years.” The ’3%’ figure came from people comparing this nuclear waste (e.g. cesium-134, -137) to the natural background radiation levels (e.g. potassium-40) in the fish. This comparison is rejected by pro-nuclear scientists, and has been labelled ‘propaganda’.
No comments yet.
-
Archives
- December 2025 (277)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (377)
- September 2025 (258)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
- April 2025 (305)
- March 2025 (319)
- February 2025 (234)
- January 2025 (250)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS


Leave a comment